"Beware the Batman" in 2013! New Animated Series

It's the same challenge writers always face when working within an established format: Keep things dynamic and expanding without violating the artistic integrity of the core concept.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what they have done. But from your past comments, it seems you're more concerned with preserving the superficial details, objecting to any change in them even if the core is still there.

Most of us don't think the artistic integrity of the Batman mythos has been violated. Certainly not after one episode. Who knows - you may end up loving BtB and I may end up hating it. It's too soon to tell.

Another point about Alfred... In the 1949 serial, he put on the Batman costume and served as a decoy when Bruce was kidnapped. He was hands on even back then.

I also had a thought... I like the idea of Katana becoming the new Robin. And somehow I imagined her costume being black but without losing the basic design that makes it recognizable as Robin. Here's a rough photoshop job I did. I'd probably even take out the yellow lining on the inside of the cape and just have a yellow rim, but if some contrast is needed, then leaving it in isn't a problem.

I think it's fair to say that I've warmed up to the show. They gave us some new twists I wouldn't have thought of and made them work. With Nolan's Batman, I was always curious about what each member of the familiar rogues gallery would be like, but with this show, I'm not that curious. If they put the focus on an entirely new set of villains I wouldn't mind at all.

Another point about Alfred... In the 1949 serial, he put on the Batman costume and served as a decoy when Bruce was kidnapped. He was hands on even back then.

Click to expand...

Something he did two or three times in the '66 series as well.

I think it's fair to say that I've warmed up to the show. They gave us some new twists I wouldn't have thought of and made them work. With Nolan's Batman, I was always curious about what each member of the familiar rogues gallery would be like, but with this show, I'm not that curious. If they put the focus on an entirely new set of villains I wouldn't mind at all.

Click to expand...

I'd been assuming that Glen Murakami would be the lead character designer here, as he was on Teen Titans and I believe on Ben 10 Alien Force/Ultimate Alien, but apparently that job went to Shane Glines.

Actually, according to Mitch Watson, the model for this version of Alfred is "Sean Connery from The Untouchables": Someone formerly on a par with the hero but now in his 60s and past his prime, reduced to a support/advisory role when he'd rather be a man of action alongside the hero.

Click to expand...

"They pull a knife, you pull some kind of gunlike blaster thing. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you dispatch one of his offscreen."

I think its been a tradition and pattern of the various tv shows and movies pushing Alfred's role bigger and bigger.

On top of the serial and the 60s show examples listed, Michael Gough in the movies had a very strong role in Batman's crime fighting. In Batman Returns he was monitoring the Penguins attack from the cave for Batman. The Animated Series I believe was the first to introduce that he had a military, British secret agent background. Which was used more prominently in the Nolan films

I had not read the actual comics much in years but he is still basically just the butler. Probably because there is this whole army of ex Robins, his role is not as important.

It's the same challenge writers always face when working within an established format: Keep things dynamic and expanding without violating the artistic integrity of the core concept.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what they have done. But from your past comments, it seems you're more concerned with preserving the superficial details, objecting to any change in them even if the core is still there.

Click to expand...

Nope, just the opposite. As I keep repeating, turning the butler into an action hero is pandering. Let the butler be the butler.

Sorry RJD...but I honestly don't see it as pandering...and if it is...who are they pandering TO in this case? What target audience? Alfred still is the butler, and he has always been more than that at various times during his history...as has been revealed in the thread and explained. Alfred isn't just the butler...he has always had a more complex history. Any Batman fan knows that.

I think its been a tradition and pattern of the various tv shows and movies pushing Alfred's role bigger and bigger.

Click to expand...

Not just his. Lucius Fox was introduced in the '70s as the guy who ran Wayne Enterprises while Bruce was busy being Batman. He was never seen onscreen until B:TAS, where he had an occasional supporting appearance in the same role, a minor ally who had no idea Bruce was Batman. Then Nolan came along and turned Lucius into Batman's Q, and suddenly he had a huge, central role in the saga that he'd never had before. I believe the later seasons of The Batman introduced a version of Lucius that followed Nolan's lead, and the comics have given their version of Lucius an expanded role similar to the movie Lucius.

The Animated Series I believe was the first to introduce that he had a military, British secret agent background.

Click to expand...

As I've already pointed out several times, and as Zaku's posted image proves, that was established in the comics no later than the early '80s. But B:TAS was the first screen production to pick up on that established fact from the comics.

Nope, just the opposite. As I keep repeating, turning the butler into an action hero is pandering. Let the butler be the butler.

Click to expand...

And you keep being wrong by insisting on such a black-and-white, absolutist distinction, that it has to be one or the other and can't be a mix of both. You've been told over and over again that the comics' Alfred has a military background and has often been shown to be a capable fighter when he needs to be. That is a fact, and your insistence on denying it is inexplicable.

Plus, it's been clearly stated by the producers of the show that Alfred is not "an action hero" here; he is Sean Connery in The Untouchables. He is someone who used to be an action hero but now has to adjust to being too old for that role. Glen Murakami even insisted that Alfred's role in the action be reduced from what was initially planned. These facts have been explained to you, yet you insist on ignoring it and clinging to your preconceptions even after they've been proven wrong. I don't understand such willful denial of the facts.

Sorry RJD...but I honestly don't see it as pandering...and if it is...who are they pandering TO in this case? What target audience? Alfred still is the butler, and he has always been more than that at various times during his history...as has been revealed in the thread and explained. Alfred isn't just the butler...he has always had a more complex history. Any Batman fan knows that.

Click to expand...

They're pandering to an audience that cannot (or who they perceive cannot) tolerate a character who "also serves by only standing and waiting." Even the ever-more-military Alfred in the comics follows that pattern: "See, he's not a mere butler, he's a real he-man and he's got... a past!" Boring. It would be much more interesting to have a character that contrasts with the heroic lead-- a gentleman's gentleman who grew into the role of a Batman's gentleman.

^ I disagree with that take, but you've made it very clear on just one episode that you don't like this version. That's fine. Maybe you will change your mind as the series continues...but I guess if you only see one aspect of Alfred perhaps that won't be the case.

RJDiogenes, the fact is superhero comics have as main and support characters alphas (think alphas from Brave new world): larger than life, innovative, gifted, etc. There's a very good reason for that - reading about such alphas is why people read superhero comics in the first place.

Alfred, if only a standard butler, would be strictly beta - competent at his job, but that's it. And that would be boring/frustrating to read about AKA the comics would not be read.

^^ No, that's not what I said-- thus my clever comment about growing from a gentleman's gentleman to a Batman's gentleman. My point is that there are many ways of being larger than life, and defaulting to action man is the lazy way out.

^ I disagree with that take, but you've made it very clear on just one episode that you don't like this version. That's fine. Maybe you will change your mind as the series continues...but I guess if you only see one aspect of Alfred perhaps that won't be the case.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the quality of the show. It may be great. I'm just making a point about re-imaginings and artistic integrity.

My point is that there are many ways of being larger than life, and defaulting to action man is the lazy way out.

Click to expand...

And you're still fundamentally wrong about this. He's not an action man. He's a former action man. Your mistake is in assuming that the way he was in the pilot represents the way he'll be in every episode, and that's quite illogical. Many, many pilots show characters starting out one way and then changing by the end, learning or being forced to accept a new status quo, and it's what you see at the very end that represents what they'll be in the series going forward. For instance, in most of DS9's pilot, Ben Sisko didn't want to be on the station at all, but by the end, he'd changed his mind. In most of Voyager's pilot, Chakotay was the captain of another ship and a rival to Janeway; but by the end, he'd become her first officer. In many pilots, such as Eureka and Defiance, the main character is just passing through town, but by the end of the pilot he's become the local lawman.

And by the same token, in this pilot, Alfred started out as a physically capable man of action, but by the end, he'd been sidelined and had to adopt a less physical role, handing that responsibility off to Katana. Evidently that is what will be the status quo of the series; the producers' own comments have told us that much.

The second episode is on in just over an hour. Then we'll have some actual information about where the character goes from here.

Well, I liked that episode. Again, I've never heard of Magpie, and I thought that she was an interesting new opponent. I have no idea if this depiction is anything like the comics' Magpie, and don't really care, either. I liked her. Of course, I have to say I saw the twist coming. It's always the character you don't think to be the one that is the one.

I see there will be some growth of the relationship between Gordon and Batman. I like there being room for changes.

And, what do you know - Alfred was not in action this time. Yet he still contributed to the mission.

Did we see the public Bruce Wayne yet? Was he being the public facade for Katana? If so, he's not playing the billionaire playboy of average intelligence in public. He would seem to be acting as a competent businessman in public, what with his quick reading of her, if he was playing that role for Katana. Yet I didn't notice her actually dropping her voice or raising her eyes when she called Alfred "Major".

Okay, I am really a fan of this show now. "Secrets" was very impressive. It felt very much like B:TAS in the darkness of the premise and the psychological nuance and sympathetic qualities of the villain, but also added some good character development and exploration for the leads in the more incremental style of modern serialized storytelling.

There was some surprisingly dark and violent content here. Magpie falling hard on that car and having to heal from the impact, even kept largely offscreen and having no consequences to her, seemed surprisingly intense. And the implication that Batman had inflicted that Lunkhead character's brain damage by putting him in a coma -- that's disturbing. That makes for one hardcore Batman, and it justifies why this show's Gordon isn't a fan of Batman's methods. Maybe the series will involve Batman learning to ameliorate his methods as his relationship with Gordon grows -- similarly to how the arc of Arrow is about Oliver starting as a vengeance-driven vigilante and moving toward a more heroic role. In any case, I really liked Gordon here, and it'll be cool to see how his interaction with Batman develops.

And I called it -- despite what Tara Strong said in her "tweet," she appeared as Barbara, not Batgirl. It's a young-ish Barbara, evidently highschool-age, and there's no indication that she's a closet superhero yet, but she's definitely a Bat-fangirl. And having Gordon distrust Batman rather than embracing him makes for an interesting contrast there.

I liked how Batman was so driven to fight crime that he even made a point of stopping a couple of petty vandals -- and how that distracted him enough to let Magpie get the drop on him. Along with his line "Who says this is a costume?", it suggests that maybe this Batman is a little more obsessive about his mission than he should be -- and that maybe Katana's role as his eventual partner will involve grounding and moderating him somewhat. She certainly comes off as no-nonsense enough to do the job, although she's kind of aggressive herself.

I like the bits showing how keen Bruce's deductive skills are; it's a bit of a risk revealing he has those skills as Bruce, but it's well-justified as a quality a businessman needs. As for the actual mystery here, it wasn't that hard to figure out that Ravencroft was the red herring and Cassie was really Magpie -- although I gave it away for myself by checking the credits on Wikipedia during the first commercial. That told me that Magpie was Grey DeLisle and Ravencroft was Cree Summer. I certainly would've recognized Summer's voice on my own, but DeLisle made Magpie sound Summer-ish enough that I might've been unsure who she was if I hadn't read the credits.

My main problem is that I feel Magpie was rather too sexualized in her design. ComicsAlliance has recently posted a couple of galleries of character designer Shane Glines's other artwork, and it seems to me that he really goes overboard on the cheesecake and sexualization of female characters. He's avoided that with Katana, but Magpie was just a little too far into fetish territory. It's hard to believe that costume would stay on through all the big fight moves she does, and her look distracted too much from her character story. It's a pervasive problem in modern comics, which are targeted at the male gaze to a degree that often alienates female readers (and viewers).

Aside from that -- and from the continuing issue of the sparsely populated CG Gotham -- I'm really loving this show.

I have no idea if this depiction is anything like the comics' Magpie, and don't really care, either. I liked her.

Click to expand...

She's very different. The comics' Magpie was Margaret Pye, and she was a jewel thief who targeted jewels named after birds. She was a museum curator driven mad by being close to so many pretty things she couldn't own. She was a minor character known mainly for her very '80s punk look, and her main claim to fame was being the first villain that Superman and Batman fought together in the post-Crisis continuity (in John Byrne's Man of Steel #3).

I like the reinvention here -- she's still defined as a character who's driven to possess something, but it's not just shiny jewels, it's her stolen memories and identity, making it much more poignant. Although changing her name to Margaret Sorrow was just too on the nose.

Not going to go into a lot of detail right now but I thought that was a really solid episode. I thought it was a nice touch seeing Gordon and Batman both crack the case using different methods and approaches. I was completely suckered by the red herring, lol.

Yeah, I'm liking the procedural aspect. It's amusing to note that Mitch Watson's previous series, Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated, was also basically driven by crimesolving, though within a particular formula and a more comedic style.

I'm getting more comfortable with Ruvivar as Batman (although there were moments where he sounded maybe a bit too Conroyesque), but his Bruce doesn't entirely work for me -- he just sounds like Batman putting on a slightly lighter voice while still being pretty forceful-sounding.